Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 468 NE2D 609 - Alfano v. Stutsman

Alfano v. Stutsman’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
December 1984
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 145 Ind. App. 542 - Doe v. Barnett · Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Clark · 112 Ohio St. 485 - Drew v. Gross · Royer v. Pryor Ex Rel. Pryor · Gardner v. Koenig

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “foreseen and appreciated the propensity of all dogs to be dangerous in certain cireumstances and that large dogs who continually bark and snarl at people, even though generally harmless and generally playful, may nonetheless become dangerous if suddenly surprised, or if approached by someone with respect to whom the dog may have incurred a particular antipathy ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “to prevent young children from innocently trespassing and attempting to play with it and exposing themselves to the risk of harm should the dog's temper at the moment go awry.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The court concluded that Alfano breached this duty of care by failing to sequester the dog so as”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.